Messages - zetein

That book was awesome, I basically skipped everything I had to do in those days and I only thought about going home and finishing the novel. I don't know what version you are reading, but there are some obvious hints of child sexual abuse in the last chapter (which is Stavroghin's confession and subsequent motive for his fate). That is more than obvious and one of the most shocking moments in literature I have ever encountered. In fact, the whole novel blew me to pieces, and the characters are quite surreal. Still, I can't understand how you can sympathize with Verhovenski, that genuinely soulless man (have you finished the novel?), the ironic caricature of Necheaev.In Dostoyevsky's novels, it's clearly not necessary to go into stupid physical details (I remember I once read a chart of the worst descriptions of sex in literature), since most of them are just the battleground of hard-to-stomach ideas. There are still alot of other books in classical literature with hints of sexual scenes, but they are just like the Hollywood movies of the '50s - they kiss and ... skipping to the next chapter

my two cents: no new info but solid and concise data distribution. unfortunately, it's bad style as propaganda. responses are too wordy. questions are too few and too roundabout. less is more.

I think you're right on all the points, but for a lazy bastard like myself it was a really good refreshment of the fundamental beliefs propelling this man (other than actually reading, not his opinions on the site, but most of all the books he's drawn inspiration from). True, this is not good propaganda, but the philosophical stance might attratct different types of people, not the "tl;dr" dudes, but those who go beyond simplistic propaganda messages.

I might be off the hook here, but his nihilism sounds more like a brutal realism to me. When you reject all (man-made) values, then even your own thought-process is completely useless, thus there can be no talk of any absolute truth - like "reality is consistent" etc... This take on nihilism seems to contradict the idea of perspectivism, thus paving the way for dogma... Even if reality is consistent, the scientific position implicitly chosen is, by it's own nature, only temporarily true (or more like, actually false), since one of the ways science and our knowledge of the world in general evolves is through self-contradiction, breaking with the errors of the past.

Now, I'm not saying that the bread, with the buttered side or not, won't fall on the carpet - I do believe in such timeless constraints (and not even this is eternal ), but for me this is just an explanation, an invention, a (human) way to react to the brutality of existence itself, a perspective (subject to nihilism), and nothing more. If we return to see truth as just "an army of metaphors" (which it ... could be, but for me it makes more sense intuitively, thus it seems absolute to me, ha), then your own interpretations of this "consistent" reality are questionable and even more so, your solutions. If you really want to be truthful and faithful to the scientific method you should go buy a country and have some experimental eugenics for fun for a couple of generations. Perhaps the idea of doubt only comes into place because it simply represents the possibility of different perspectives that others may have. But really, if we follow this thread of thought (perspectivism) to its ultimate conclusions, then the only thing that can separate human belief systems is purely based on power hierarchies. Thus your views, and, more importantly, the appeal to truth as the warrantor of certain courses of action, are intrinsically manipulative and an unique result of your own impressions of life.

This is, hopefully, not just a waste of digital space through mindless opposition. Truth is, this site does give a real, authentic sense of direction and has influenced many people, but for me its dogma is just the same "human conceit of imposing antropomorphic reality onto nature" - it just shows by implying that you seem to be the one with a keen eye toward the True chain of events that provoke effects, and not just trusting your own preference (like me here ). More importantly, it gives way to some dangerous actions, like genocide (however a simple and realistic solution, clearly not a viable one in our current positions and quite a debilitating and alienating thought), which are granted justifications as being the right thing to do.

Redemption: skilled men of action, deceivers, assertive and cruel spirits that can cross ideals and act regardless of moral stance.

"He died convinced that he had left the world in a different state than it was before, and he was right: through his astounding legacy of poetry, philosophical aphorisms, music and letters, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche had declared war against an entire modern world, shaking its very foundations to tear down everything sacred and holy, restoring ancient order and urging the future generations to live with courage and honour. "

I see nothing wrong with this interpretation, since one can find many instances where he addresses "modern" ideas and "modern" spirits (just like that, with quotes) in disparaging terms. It is also known that he praised the advent of nihilism and, quite literally, he rushed its acceptance as a disturbing reality. He was very much against the modern world, but I'll give you credit in that I don't remember reading about the "ancient order" he would like restored, yet this does not say much about Nietzsche as it says about the writer's Evolian influences.

Yes, Nietzsche is at times paradoxical and sometimes at odds with the ANUS dogma, but you're forgetting this is an organization committed first of all to social change, not to emulate or further Nietzsche's thought. Languishing in states of confusion or wonder is more proper for the novices or the mystical philosopher, but this ideology is clear-cut, and, quite frankly, their pragmatism is welcomed in an ever less discerning modern world.

Btw, I am not into the ANUS stuff, this is just an outsider perspective.

In your big-ass quote, there are mentions of perspectivism and the supposed demise of his thought : "Because there can be no final overcoming of overcoming, according to Berkowitz, "Nietzsche's teaching, at the climactic moment, shatters." ". First of all, perspectivism might destroy criteria for objectivity, but on the whole, I see it as a more honest approach to knowledge, recognizing that it is both creation, invention, lies, and also a necessary risk of interpreting the reality we experience, without which we could not function at all. But, perhaps more importantly, the transcendent character of most of Nietzsche's rhetoric is seen when he praises the individual will: he sees it as someting which thrives through insatisfaction, whose constant aim is to move forward at all times, to absorb and conquer all obstacles. That is why I do not see it as possible to infer the weakness of his philosophy through its paradoxical nature of the pointlessness of overcoming, since, for Nietzsche, meaninglessness is just the first step to take in the re-valuation of the world: http://killian.com/earl/ThusSpokeZarathustra.html#onthethreemetamorphoses

I used to think a lot about this (and like this) after hearing Ildjarn and reading about him. It always amazed me how a seemingly simple and obscure individual can create such music of revelation and mistery.

But really, I don't believe in honesty, at least not as applied to artists, or creators. They are, above all, beings that give shape to the confusing realm of reality, and they do it first of all through the strength of their spirit, a sublime affirmation of their own existence. Furthermore, I do not know how much they actually understand about the True meaning of their works. I think that conceptualization is better left for critics, and contemplative natures in general, rather then active, creative natures. Their works of art often have a life of their own, beyond what could be expected, or implied.

Of course, for Burzum and Ildjarn for example, they were fully aware of the atrocity or the moods they wanted to convey, but just because it is not conceptualized, and is seemingly simple, it does not mean it holds no philosophical merit (and philosophical would go better replaced with meta-physical). I guess when they talk about being your True Self, it is akin more to something like bringing forth my own vision without hesitation or compromise. Now of course, in the case of talented and exceptional individuals like these BM musicians, the expressions of their visions and feelings about the world are worth a check, and the ones from the Moat guy are worth shit. That's why any loser may consider himself true, and that's why even if I try to mimic the simple songs of Ildjarn, and may succed at it, it wouldn't be of the same value, since both approaches would be fake: we do not share the same spirit and we have none if we are stuck trying to mimic others.

That's why not any "unfiltered expression of your true Self" has worth for every dude out there. We are not equals, and brilliant, creative individuals are a rare breed. Music that is fake means just that the creators are shit / not interesting / boring / imitators / expressing human weakness in both form and content / unable to transcend their own knowledge for expressing something both new and eternal / not worthwhile.

After trying out some old Beherit on acoustic (which sounds AWESOME), this post seems redundant, since the feeling is still there, trapped in the music, regardless of the instrument. I just thought it was too hard.Self-imposed limitations: Ildjarn once said he is not able to make music anymore, since the 4-tracker he used was destroyed (haha) ; it wouldn't have been the sound he was looking for... Technical limitations depend only on the needs of the artist, which arise from what they are trying to convey in the first place. The medium is just an accessory, and shaped by their vision (and, probably the inverse is also true).

This is probably a stupid idea, but to due some circumstances, I only have access to an acoustic guitar and I really wanna learn to play metal. Do you think it is possible to do some progress with just an acoustic guitar (btw, this is just a temporary situation, I realize it can't go on like this forever) ? Have you tried playing metal songs like this? Any good sugestions? These guys seem to have some fun with the classical guitar:

Triumph of the self. In the end, this realization [the topic] comes from a Nietzschean context, and that reminds me of the example of Napoleon, whose history is also the history of: "the supreme happiness this century [the XIXth] has attained through its men of valour and its moments of brilliance."Indeed, this man brought the death of millions, massive changes throughout Europe and an astounding legacy of the glory one man can achieve, wholly through the powers of ambition and self-confidence. He believed in nothing but himself.Once nihilism has become the default philosophical stance, there can be little room for sacredness (perhaps only somehow ironically, as a recognition of a higher state of being and acting, but definetly not upholding it as an absolute), in my opinion, but - once the fatalistic stance has been overcome - there is the possibility of endless exploration of the ideals and mental designs we can apply to the environment we interact with, through eugenics, art, philosophy, science etc....Fuck God, fuck sacredness, onward to new battles and human evolution through "aristeia" (excellence). After all, Nietzsche admits one of his conclusions holds that the "real man represents a much higher value than the "desirable" man in one or another of the known ideals" [...] "that the ideal has been until now precisely the disparaging force of man and universe, the poisonous breath onto reality, the great temptation of nothingness..."

If I'm missing the point of the topic, then may I ask, what does God represent that has died and should be replaced? From the beginning I supposed that this was a question of ideals.